M.G.L. c.140, §131c - is this a joke?

[sbi]

Tell me if I understand this correctly:

According to this section, paragraph d, every little putz who is a government employee (not trying to offend anyone; I am referring to what Devalv calls "non-essential employees", if you know what I mean ) regardless of which state or federal agency he or she works for, regardless of their job title or function, can carry or transport their firearm as they wish (for example - large capacity rifle or shotgun loaded and unlocked) which a 'normal' citizen could be fined for (provided of course they are legally licensed):

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any officer, agent or employee of the commonwealth or any state or the United States; (ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or of the United States; (iii) any duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or employee of any municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.

I am not an attorney of course, so perhaps my "legal" common sense misinterpret this paragraph, even though it seems pretty clear to me.

To summarize and make it clear:

Large capacity rifle/shotgun must be unloaded and locked in your car. Unless your paycheck is printed by any
government entity. Am I reading this right?

 

[MisterHappy]

Not part of the BOLD.... since the "authorization" to carry or possess is granted by LTC (or Badge, if a cop), one would need the LTC; then you have the "authorized by competent authority" - the water department would probably not be considered competent, and "Acting within the scope of his duties" means on the clock.

IANAL, but IMO, it's so a cop won't get jammed up for tossing his EBR on the back seat while doing tactical stuff.

Is the language vague....well DUH! It's Mass gun laws!

 

[sbi]

Or you can read the "competent authority" as the local CoP who approved the LTC to the water department secretary...

 

[terraformer]

No, the last sentence applies to the first three.

provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.

So the water department would need to authorize the secretary as a needing a gun for their duties.

 

[Bonesinium]

Tell me if I understand this correctly:

...every little putz who is a government employee regardless of which state or federal agency he or she works for, regardless of their job title or function... can carry or transport their firearm as they wish

provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.

So to answer, no, you don't understand it correctly. Their job and function is completely relevant...

 

[cbrxx]

provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the weapon so carried or possessed and is acting within the scope of his duties.

Lets face it, are any of our "authorities" truly competent?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Lets face it, are any of our "authorities" truly competent?

Perhaps not, but in the legal sense the term means "having the authority to do something", not "skilled and capable"

 

[FSTC]

No, the last sentence applies to the first three.



So the water department would need to authorize the secretary as a needing a gun for their duties.

"scope of duties" is the vague term. If the highway department is in charge of dispatching critters, that would be under their scope.

 

[terraformer]

"scope of duties" is the vague term. If the highway department is in charge of dispatching critters, that would be under their scope.

That's a valid example. Dog cops and/or dpw workers who are authorized to shoot critters would be covered and would be exempt from the 500 ft limit too.

 

[Lank]

MGL 140 IS A JOKE

Crime is up under these byzantine laws

 

[PATRON]

I think it's time for.

 

[KMS]

View attachment 100525I think it's time for.

Haha...I made one of for calsdad but haven't seen any dog food threads that we could turn into a political science session.